Search

The expectation gap, the gap between what the public expects from auditors and what auditors can deliver, is a key issue. This gap can call into question the trust necessary for contemporary societies to function. After providing a historical overview to help understand the issues and the development of the "expectation gap" concept, the article shows the mechanisms by which auditors are subjected to contradictory or incompatible pressures and paradoxical injunctions that can lead to such gaps. It then describes the ways and means of reducing the expectation gap: essentially, guaranteeing the independence of auditors and extending the tasks entrusted to them so that they can better contribute to defending the public interest. In this second area, the case of sustainability auditing is special, given its great complexity, the great diversity of stakeholders and their expectations, and the ability of a new profession, "sustainability auditor", to respond, which is "bubbling up". These reflections are based on historical and documentary research, dealing with international standards, European law and its impact on French and Romanian accounting law, as well as secondary analysis of various reports and official documents.

In the context of recurrent ecological and societal crises, the European institutions are committed to fostering sustainable development that meets the needs of present and future generations, while providing new opportunities for employment, investment and economic growth. These commitments are the guiding principle of European policies and strategies in terms of financing sustainable growth, green transition, and building an economy at the service of citizens. They have been gradually transposed into a large number of European regulations, including those related to sustainability disclosure by certain categories of economic and financial actors. The significance of the paradigm shift fuels the reflection on the relationship between these new regulations and the social reality, in which and upon which they must act. The new regulations referring to are especially: Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services; Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (Taxonomy Regulation); Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. As part of the European and international sustainability concerns, this article is a reflection paper on the developments, notably conceptual, axiological and substantive, generated by the Directive (EU) 2022/2464, and their translation into legal and practical innovations. Based on an extensive review of the relevant literature and European legislation, as well as on content analysis and secondary analysis of numerous scientific studies in the field, authors’ contribution focuses on the meaning and implications of the switch from 'non-financial information' to 'sustainability information', as well as on the new relationship between the law and the social reality created by Directive (EU) 2022/2464. The authors assume that such clarifications are a prerequisite for the successful transformation of certain professions significantly affected by this Directive, including those of financial analysts and auditors. This requires, at the same time, upstream changes of university curricula and continuing education in this area, as well as in research programs.

The question of authority can take various forms and have different purposes. The exercise of authority influences behaviors, changes practices, transforms realities, and, by avoiding chaos, brings intellectual comfort to those who submit to it by leaving it to others, i.e., those who possess authority, the task of asking questions and sometimes finding satisfactory answers. The paper highlights the multiple perspectives of a definition of the concept of authority, to then reflect on the authority and legitimacy of accounting rules and regulations. This is because if confidence is essential in trade, it is just as essential in accounting matters. In this regard the authors consider that it would be more useful to deal with the substance of the problem and to address the underlying or implicit assumptions that made it possible to produce the accounting information. Thus, the accounting can be perceived as a legitimate and effective authority which contributes to a climate of trust.

The question regarding the universal or contingent character of accounting is essential because it determines one of the dimensions of the governance of organizations. The first part of the article shows the dynamics of universality, that is, the movement towards a single set of global standards. The second part shows the limits of this movement and, conversely, the relevance of standards adjusted to local contingencies and coercions. Finally, the third part deals with the balance between these two concepts of accounting.

The international accounting standards (IFRSs and ISAs) rely increasingly more on the “professional judgment”. What is the situation in France and in Romania? After the conceptual clarifications, the article places the evolution of the professional judgment in the general movement of the law, which goes from “modernism” to “post-modernism” to become a law of specialists able to have a qualified opinion on highly technical subjects. In order to observe, in a scientific manner, this evolution of the accounting standards, we conducted a content analysis of principal legislative accounting texts, international and national (France and Romania), supplemented by a lexicometric analysis. These analyses allowed us to conclude that the importance of professional judgment in accounting standards is lower at the national level than it is at the international level. However, we highlight a number of dangers related to an increased use of professional judgment: loss of comparability and transparency, increased risks for accounting professionals including auditors, and significant discrepancies in the use of professional judgment in individual or consolidated accounts